Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 247 posts

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#121

Post by dane-pgp »

andrew_ wrote: post #115
mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

I see small, walled groups with vibrant and varied discussion re-emerging. I hear about new small groups/chats constantly; I'm a party to several. Discussion within is without fear of consequence, ideas are discussed objectively and in earnest. Disagreements are expected and welcome. Sometimes tempers flare but mutual respect is not lost and empathy is high. The soup of the day is candor, and it's delicious. It's a m…

> Discussion within is without fear of consequence, ideas are discussed objectively and in earnest.

It's almost as if the Chatham House Rule is some sort of universal game theoretic truth that keeps getting rediscovered in different fields.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatham_House_Rule

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#122

Post by tzs »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #77
WesternWind wrote: post #32

I mean apparently Wilson suggested at one point that because eusocial insects exist where some insects serve others, slavery among humans is natural? Which ignores a huge amount of differences. To pick one eusocial insects of the same species are closely related to the ones they serve, and how slavery is not universal. Family and kinship groups are probably a way better metaphor than slavery. Occasionally some insect…

Plenty of things are natural that are considered immoral.

I think one can make a reasonable case that foregoing doing some natural things, and trying to force others to also forego them, on the grounds that they are immoral is the only thing that really is fundamentally different between humans and other animals.

The things that are usually cited as the fundamental differences, such as our intelligence, language, culture, etc I would argue are just differences in degree.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#123

Post by stjohnswarts »

mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

Woke culture had a purpose but it has become a victim of its own success. The author of the SA article clearly wants to carve out science as biased by the mere fact of asserting that all genes are not equal. They seem to think we are all perfectly one as capable as the other in all things. That is insanity. It leads to a spiral of blame and anxiety as we see ourselves as nothing but victims of the world at large and that we're helpless to do anything about it.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#124

Post by nekcihc »

andrew_ wrote: post #115
mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

I see small, walled groups with vibrant and varied discussion re-emerging. I hear about new small groups/chats constantly; I'm a party to several. Discussion within is without fear of consequence, ideas are discussed objectively and in earnest. Disagreements are expected and welcome. Sometimes tempers flare but mutual respect is not lost and empathy is high. The soup of the day is candor, and it's delicious. It's a m…

[flagged]

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#125

Post by tzs »

commoner wrote: post #23
yeetaccount4 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was listening to NPR the other day and they had a piece about how the individual can do their part reducing carbon emissions by not eating so much meat. The interviewee went into the amount of resources that go into supporting a diet with meat vs a less-meaty diet and the point was pretty clear. The interviewer rounded off the piece by asking about racial disparities and how this will disproportionately affect non…

The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes. Switching from meats to healthy non-meat foods can save money in many cases. If the diet change includes a reduction of red or processed meats, switching to healthy non-meat foods would also improve the person's health and reduce their healthcare expenses in the…

> The correct answer to the interviewer's question is to point out that the lowest cost-per-calorie foods tend to be non-meat foods such as grains and legumes.

The correct follow up question after that answer is for the interviewer to ask how one who lives in a neighborhood where the only food sources are convenience stores and fast food restaurants is to find a good source of grains and legumes.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#126

Post by stjohnswarts »

ourmandave wrote: post #114

It's an opinion piece, not an article. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l...

Sure but it's still a garbage article. Not all opinions are equal or equally well supported. Having an opinion based on nothing but cringe and woke-ism isn't really one worth reading.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#127

Post by RachelF »

mmaunder wrote: post #83

Self-censorship is the other half of this problem. How many of us here have self censored our writing out of fear of painting a bullseye on our backs? The more you have to lose, the more cautious you are. If you’ve spent a lifetime studying a certain field, building a business or becoming a well know expert, you risk having it all taken away if you provoke the ire of the mob. And the mob has nothing to lose and every…

Scientific American has been in decline since their 2003 hit pieces against environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg. All ad-hominem attacks, no science or logic.

Sadly this has infected other publications: Last week The Economist did not do an official obituary of E.O. Wilson, they did a drag queen instead. Wilson was relegated to a four paragraph notice in the science section.

Wilson was badly attacked by Marxists in the 1970's for his book on ants, Sociobiology.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#128

Post by stjohnswarts »

ars wrote: post #113
mperham wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientific American? Just because this post had issues with one article doesn’t invalidate the entire periodical.

No, it really is that bad. I've been reading Scientific American for decades, I no longer do, it's gotten that bad. I can even pinpoint when they passed the road of no return - it's when they mixed politics with science here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/we-are-living-in-... and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-americ... here. That was when I realized they didn't care about actual s…

You can't really argue about backing anyone other than Trump, his presidency was a cess pool and almost ended the US as the oldest democracy in the world. They were just calling out fascism for what it is. There will always be a place for that in any magazine.

Re: The Shameful Decline of Scientific American

#129

Post by weeblewobble »

The opinion piece in question (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-complicated-l...) strikes me as a restrained and sober attempt to explore the possibility that Wilson and others did bad science by presuming differences between races were due to genetics. Maybe you think the piece is wrong but it's just someone expressing some ideas, it's not intended to incite the woke mob or whatever. If anything, the OP seems to be trying to whip up a moral panic to suppress speech (i.e. to teach publishers that writing about race is toxic and dissuade them from publishing further opinion pieces examining race as a structural issue)
Post reply on HN